I'm sure if you had been around at the time of the founding you would have been a hardcore anti-Federalist who opposed the adoption of the Constitution and wanted to continue living under the Articles of Confederation. It's a reasonable position but it lost a long time ago.

That's a very interesting question...would WE have supported "x" in history. It's a lot of fun (and much easier) to view it through the historical lens, but living it...'nother kettle of fish.

About 1/3 of the population were ambivalent about the Revolution and another 1/3 were loyalists...leaving only 1/3 of the population in support of the war (and the implied freedom from England).

I find this utterly fascinating - what WOULD I think?

Actually, I am seriously looking at Chile as a place to 'settle.'

As for anarchy, well, I am quite partial to Heinlein's notion of "rational anarchy," which basically states that civilization (and rule of law) is mostly an illusion, granted existence only by tacit agreement of men to live within those rules. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions and choices, and make them independently of whatever government, laws or social order is "imposed."

It's like the ultimate essence of "personal freedom," made even more interesting by the fact that at the end of the book (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), the people who were fighting toward their own freedom comprised a ruling class and founded a government.

There are some EXCELLENT quotes in that book regarding taxation, by the way. It's a great book that explores the notions of freedom, personal responsibility, social order and rebellion.

anarchy doesn't mean chaos. it just means a society without a state. You could have the same things you have now except you just pay people directly for their services without the middleman of the government taking their massive cut and maybe doing what you want and maybe not (usually the latter). Yeah it's extreme but history has shown centralized power is extremely dangerous.

Also, the 1/3 1/3 1/3 equation was true at first but the rebelion gained momentum as "insrugencies" tend to do and as it moved along the numbers for liberty from colonialism were much higher.

The basic role of government is to prevent "the war of every man against every man."Lester, I like you, but you sometimes strike me as a person who is willing to permit evil to thrive on every corner of the globe on the grounds that "it is none of our business." Evil has a way of becoming our business! Remember the warning of German pastor Martin Niemoller:"When they came for the communists I did not speak up because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up."

I believe that there is such a thing as a moral duty to oppose evil. Lincoln was right to oppose slavery; peacefully as long as he could and militarily when the South left him no other option. Churchill was right to oppose Hitler. And I firmly believe that the U.S. is absolutely right in opposing Islamic fundamentalism. NOT Islam as a whole, you understand me, but the jihadists whose stated goal is nothing less than the complete destruction of 2,000 years of Western civilization. I find the blindness of the American left on that issue absolutely maddening!

so if we hadn't invaded ,say, Panama, we woud all be speaking Panamanian now? Sorry, Americans work hard for their money and generally need as much as they can to survive. the government taking that money by force for ANY reason ESPECIALLY one as obviosly horrid as war is morally wrong, not just a waste though it's that too.

You should think more about Americans. Many of our ancestors came here to escape war and having their lives turned upside down by elites who would take their fruits of labor for idealistic purposes via communsim, fascism and other isms. Our government should leave us and other people alone. There s plenty of evil in this country to confront if that's what you are determined to do. We have 30+ million living below the poverty line. Lets help them first.

So you are against the government taking my money to defeat, oh, let's say, Nazi Germany. But you are FOR the government taking my money to give it to those less financially fortunate than myself - even if their poverty is caused by unforgivably stupid life decisions, like having four kids before they turn 20?

anarchy doesn't mean chaos. it just means a society without a state. You could have the same things you have now except you just pay people directly for their services without the middleman of the government taking their massive cut and maybe doing what you want and maybe not (usually the latter). Yeah it's extreme but history has shown centralized power is extremely dangerous.

Sounds like your ideal utopian society is Somalia today.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

indiana- I said if YOU wanted to help people. and really who is more of a socialist here? The Pentagon is in DC. It 's run by beaurocrats. It uses ALOT of taxpayer dollars. Their wastefulness is legendary.

War is, as Randolph Borne once said, the health of the state. War time powers are a tyrants dream. Criticism of the state is verbotten, they spy on people, take over industries and of course pluck people out and send them to their doom in far away places. It's the ultimate in big government.

Conservatives understood this during the CLinton years and had the correct view on the Eastern Europe interventions while the likes of Howard Dean were calling for blood.

More to the point: our trillion dollar a year mlitary budget diverts resources away from the domestic economy.

revpowell- lol no like I said anarchy is not chaos I am not for lack or order.

^ this is more what I am talking about. I would simply like to see us ahead of hong kong on this list.

I don't have a utopian ideal other than I want people to be free to live their lives without state intervention into other countries, our private lives or the economy. The fact is most of our income taxes don't go to stuff we use or need. The roads are paid for with gas tax, the schools depending on where you live with the property tax. Income tax is by and large simply a slush fund for politcians s**tty ideas.

Maybe in the past people looked to the capitols for hope or inspiration or something but in the 21 century I think our lives are for the most part our families, our communities and our selves and our efforts should be focused there not on this grandiose world as chess game stuff via our inept governments.

I'm just opposed to coercian, basically. It's like I have cable but if people don't want to have it, should we MAKE them have it because like it's better if we are all on the same wavelength and can discuss Jersey SHore or something? WHo cares. let people live how they see fit and put our efforts into ideas that don't have to be forced onto people to come to fruition.

^ this is more what I am talking about. I would simply like to see us ahead of hong kong on this list.

I don't have a utopian ideal other than I want people to be free to live their lives without state intervention into other countries, our private lives or the economy. The fact is most of our income taxes don't go to stuff we use or need. The roads are paid for with gas tax, the schools depending on where you live with the property tax. Income tax is by and large simply a slush fund for politcians s**tty ideas.

Maybe in the past people looked to the capitols for hope or inspiration or something but in the 21 century I think our lives are for the most part our families, our communities and our selves and our efforts should be focused there not on this grandiose world as chess game stuff via our inept governments.

I'm just opposed to coercian, basically. It's like I have cable but if people don't want to have it, should we MAKE them have it because like it's better if we are all on the same wavelength and can discuss Jersey SHore or something? WHo cares. let people live how they see fit and put our efforts into ideas that don't have to be forced onto people to come to fruition.

As far as the US being 8th on that economic freedom list, I guess I depends on whether you're a glass half empty or glass half full type of guy. I think 8th out of 179 in the world is pretty darn good (though it does seem awfully strange that Canada, with socialized medicine, ranks ahead of us). When you consider we also rank high for civil liberties (which a high-ranking economic country like Singapore can't claim), and also prosperity and security... I'm pretty happy with our current society.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

Well, I think the authors point was that while life in Somalia wasn't fantastic at least they didn't have some Robert Mugabe type dictator taking everyones land, naming streets after himself and assasinating his relatives and so forth, They also, amazingly, had a stable currency something we can't even manage. I am not advocate of any somali style anarchy though.

I think we have just scratched the surface of the possibilites of capitalism.

No, folks in Somalia simply file into soccer stadiums to watch 13 year old girls stoned to death for indecency!!!

Anyone who prefers that kind of anarchy to the American system of government has NO moral compass whatsoever!

Are you confusing Somalia with Afghanistan under the Taliban? I don't think Lester would pick their government over ours.

Anarchy ain't good, but I think it may be preferable to life under a well-organized dictatorship. On the other hand, Middle Easterners often appear to prefer stable dictatorships to chaos, and I guess I can see why. It's nice to be able to predict which direction the oppression will come from.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

No, folks in Somalia simply file into soccer stadiums to watch 13 year old girls stoned to death for indecency!!!

Anyone who prefers that kind of anarchy to the American system of government has NO moral compass whatsoever!

Are you confusing Somalia with Afghanistan under the Taliban? I don't think Lester would pick their government over ours.

Anarchy ain't good, but I think it may be preferable to life under a well-organized dictatorship. On the other hand, Middle Easterners often appear to prefer stable dictatorships to chaos, and I guess I can see why. It's nice to be able to predict which direction the oppression will come from.